Re-typing because my browser crashed and lost my post.


So, the economy of the Federation is a mess because they've never really given
any details. But, we can glean some concepts from what they've said over the years.

And for me, I think the basic idea is that there is now a "floor" for poverty/hunger/homelessness, etc.

Everybody has, at minimum, some kind of shelter, some access to healthcare and some kind of food access, likely just a pass to the local replimat.

Now, not everybody gets to go into space. Not everybody has access to Picard's wine or Joseph Sisko's gumbo. But nobody is living under a bridge begging for spare change.

Now, we can look at Raffi (from Picard) to see how some of this works. When she gets cashiered out of Starfleet, her career is shot, but she's still able
to live in a little home in the desert, drinking and smoking herself into a haze. So, not great, but she has a home and food. So, that's where the whole "utopia" idea falters,
but I still think they've made a tremendous advance in taking care of society.

Yeah, I’ve always viewed it as society works together to better itself. There hasn’t ever been a truly detailed explanation of how economics and finance work in the future that I’m aware. I don’t know that money is totally gone, but I think it’s less emphasized and that people are at least provided with basic needs.

So many of the people who worked on TNG chaffed inside "Roddenberry's Box" (like Piller, Moore, Behr, ect.) Ironically, it was there (relative) adherence to Gene's rules that forged better creative work from them. They skillfully sold the uptopian aspect of the series despite themselves even after he died. It wasn't until DS9 that they decided to completely throw the rule book out and Trek ultimately lost its identity becoming indistinguishable from the other SF programs of the day and after.

There has never been a sci fi show like TNG before or since. Even TOS (which I love to pieces) was more grounded in the mainstream somewhat. But, TNG really felt like it took place in other time and place alien to our time and ways. Ironically, TNG handily had the most mainstream success of all the post TOS shows ironically because of its non-mainstream ethos. (The TNG movies pretty much eschewed that ethos that made it so appealing, which may have harmed it at the box office--just a guess)

This scene is what separates TNG from well other sci fi shows:


There''s a reason the show is beloved.

I don't know... Raffi living out in the desert in a little trailer, smoking space pot and knocking down booze without a care in the world sounds pretty damned good life to me.

Yeah, I’ve seen that argument before and I get it and I can honestly see the appeal in it. But she really liked being in Starfleet so for her it’s not that great.

I just rewatched that part. That whole bit between when they realized they had been had and confronted the defector and attempted to warp away was less than a minute. I'm not exactly sure how much faster you would expect them to respond. It's not like the warbirds wouldn't have already been there waiting for them. I think you're overthinking it.

So what you're saying is you have no imagination. You have to be shown exactly how it works. With a 100 episodes on 24th century economics no less.

So basically the future is America arriving in 21st century Western Europe or Canada?

Star Trek: Picard really isn't Star Trek. It's more like Firefly than anything else.

Yeah, I agree Picard missed the mark on how they should have continued the franchise, but it's really close to being there and the episode with Will and Deanna was probably one of the best Trek stories ever done (in any series), so I just kinda go along with it.

But I want to reiterate: if you are looking for something that truly appreciates what TNG did for Trek and does it's damned best to carry on with that same tone and aesthetic, then Lower Decks is the show you want to watch. It leans on the humor more, but it comes from within, like a feeling of "we're in space dealing with aliens being idiots, if didn't laugh we'd cry" kinda feel.

Immediately. "There's nothing here." "It was a trick." "Let's get out of here." 5 seconds, tops.
Actually, I think the people who defend the scene are doing the overthinking. Just say, "yeah, in a real military situation like that, they would withdraw from enemy territory as quickly as possible."

I was just watching "The Final Mission" where Picard and Wesley were missing, and the Enterprise was stuck towing a radioactive ship into the sun. Why didn't they separate the saucer section and send it away to help search for Picard? This also would have protected all the people in the saucer from exposure to the lethal radiation coming from the other ship.
I suppose someone could come up with an elaborate technical explanation, but the truth is they didn't do that because the dramatic stakes of the narrative required Picard to be in danger as long as possible.



Star Trek fans like to talk a lot about CANON. Is the world of the future they way I am supposed to imagine it to be, or is it the way Star Trek Canon tells me it is?
Since Star Trek keeps showing me over and over that humans still use money, how about all the idealists use their imaginations and spin some explanation for why humans have jobs they don't like? Those people working at Utopia Planetia on ST: Picard didn't seem fulfilled.
Star Trek shows, almost exclusively, present us with the lives of people serving in Star Fleet. All I'm saying is that you can't extrapolate what life is like for civilians based on that.
You don't have to think about it when you watch the show, but if you want to engage is honest outside discussions, then (yeah) you have to think about it.

They were still analyzing the planet when Picard asked the defector to be brought up to the bridge to confront him and more importantly confirm that they weren't missing anything. When it became clear he was duped they left immediately. It was maybe a 30 second delay if that. As you've said before it's a fictional drama. Out of all the plot holes in the whole series it's a really weird one to be so hung up about.

And I agree about separating the saucer section. There were an almost incalculable number of times it would have been advantageous to separate and leave the civilians and children behind in the saucer section and let the battle drive section take the risk. Including in The Defector. I think practically I heard it cost too much to show the effects of it separating so they didn't do it.

You must be bringing up old arguments about it then. No one ever said that everyone is living their dream job or best life. Even in cannon they didn't say that everyone is happy and euphoric or even that the federation was a Utopia. Especially taking what Picard says to Lily:
Captain Jean-Luc Picard: The economics of the future are somewhat different. You see, money doesn't exist in the 24th century.
Lily Sloane: No money? You mean, you don't get paid?
Captain Jean-Luc Picard: The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force of our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity.

Nowhere does he say that the federation is perfect or a utopia or all the citizens are happy. He just states the acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force. Even if you don't have money or get paid you're not going to be the captain of a ship. You still have to work and learn and grind your way up to the top. There are still going to be people that are on their way up the career ladder or in jobs they don't like because of advancing their career or any other other number of reasons. I'm not going to talk about ST Picard because that show basically exists in a totally different world then TNG. But just because wealth isn't the primary driving factor in society doesn't mean there aren't still real hardships and challenges in humanity and it definitely doesn't mean everybody is happy. TNG even addresses a "perfectly utopian" society in the Masterpiece Society and pokes a lot of holes in how a perfectly engineered society still has challenges and faults.

As far as being applicable to the real world it's not at all. Human, especially those in wealthy societies like the US, are the most comfortable we've been in our entire history. The world we live in now is even more futuristic to those living in medieval times as the world of ST is to us. Think about how much the economy has changed. We no longer have to physically toil for our meals. We're free to explore a lot more because technological and societal advances has freed us from the daily grind. But we still have to work. It's not a utopia by any means.

To: Count Dooku

This is probably the best video about this issue:


Steve Shives also makes the most thoughtful commentary videos about Star Trek anywhere.

I just timed it. From the moment Data reports that there is no Romulan base on Nelvana 3 to the moment Picard orders the Enterprise to withdraw, it is 2 minutes and 10 seconds. And notice that when Riker finally suggests they withdraw, everyone snaps to action like getting out of there immediately is the most important thing in the world.


You can't have it both ways. The "economics of the future" involves capitalism or it does not. If capitalism has been eliminated as an economic system, then that has undeniable implications for what economic system exists instead.

From Aristotle to The Enlightenment, it has been a fundamental tenet of Western Philosophy that humans want to be happy.
One premise of capitalism is that people will labor at things that do not make them happy because the financial reward they receive in return is a means to happiness.

If humans of the 24th Century no longer labor in return for money, then they must derive their happiness from the performance of that labor. Even if people are so evolved that the betterment of society is more important to them than selfish concerns, it would be insane to posit that people would toil in misery for the betterment of society as a whole.

As far as Picard's claim that people work to better themselves, I have no fucking idea what that means in practical terms. People possess personal property. How do they acquire that property without money? Picard lives on a big estate. If he does not own it, then that means The State owns it a lets him live there (in return for his service?).
The implication of the economic system Picard describes is one in which a totalitarian state controls all property and dictates where people will live.

I'll concede it's closer to 2 mins. But they're still analyzing the planet even after Data says there's no base and it's still prudent to ask the defector to make sure they weren't missing something. So by the time Riker confronts him and says there no base to when he orders the Enterprise to get out of there it's 75 second. Either way, IMO, it's a weird thing to be picky about when there are so many other plot holes in the series. But it definitely would have been a great time to separate the saucer section before going in head strong into the neutral zone.

That's the point though. We don't see anyone in the federation toiling in misery. They might not have their dream job but you don't see anyone miserable in their job. And if they were they could change jobs to something that might fit them better. And of course we don't know what it mean in absolute practical terms. Because it's fiction and all made up. It wouldn't work in the real world. It seems like previous people you've had this argument with have tried to apply it to the real world. I'm not trying to do that at all because it absolutely wouldn't work in the real world. But is it a neat concept and an inspiring and hopeful way to live in a society? Yeah.

That's an excellent rundown and does a good job of trying to reconcile the inconsistencies found in the franchise while exploring if they could be applicable to our own society.

So, I enjoyed that video.

1) The solution he posits to the question about money existing is to embrace the contradiction. The Federation has money, but Federation citizens do not have money. So how do Fed citizens get money when they need it? The Federation gives it to them.
Okay, but that's never happened . . . ever . . . a single time in any episode of Star Trek.
In fact, the only time I can recall a character bringing up that they lacked money was Jake Sisko trying to buy a present for his father, and Jake certainly was not able to just "ask" The Federation for some quick cash.

2) The video mentions and then completely ignores addressing the existence of private property in the form of real estate. How does the Picard family "own" their vineyard? How does SIsko's father "own" his restaurant?
Seriously. Billions of people on Earth and who decides that Picard can plant himself on an estate, and somebody else has to live in an apartment?

Sisko runs his restaurant because he likes cooking and giving his food away for free. But what about the guy who peels his potatoes and de-veins his shrimp and guts his catfish? He's doing it because that's living his best life? And if that guy is living his best life working in Sisko's kitchen, but he wants to wake up every morning on an estate on the south of France, that's exactly how he gets to live, right?

Here's the thing, so we can stop having this discussion.

The premise of the economics of Star Trek, and the idealism people see in it, is what has been a fundamental component of human nature for at least 2500 years is going to disappear in the next 300 . . . and that's selfishness.
And I don't see that happening, and I don't want that to happen.
Selfishness derives from a sense of self, a personal value in one's own individuality.

I understand the elimination of scarcity and poverty, so that everybody can have what they need, but how do you account for what people want if there is no limit on what they can have?

I am using my imagination that despite all the advancements in technology, there is still dangerous and boring grunt work to be done. Like the dangerous work that the theoretical race of Datas was going to end up doing in "Measure of a Man." And whatever all those abandoned EMHs were doing in "Author, Author." And those people forced to work at Utopia Planitia on a Federation holiday didn't seem too happy on ST: Picard.

If you're wondering how he eats & breathes,
And other science facts...(la! la! la!)
Then repeat to yourself its just a show,
I should really just relax...For Mystery Science Theater
3000.......

TNG IS Star Trek to me. I straight up don't like TOS (I have some fun with the new Kelvin movies, though). I think TNG ironically portays Roddenberry's ideals better than the man himself was ever capable of writing. I actually just started Voyager for the first time, to try and get some more TNG goodness.

"Darmok" remains my favorite episode of the series ("Disaster" is probably#2) and frankly one of my favorite TV episodes in general.

if that's your philosophy, then why do you keep making posts about how much you like the show? You're just supposed to relax, watch it, enjoy it, and forget about it. You're not supposed to ever think about it except for during that hour you're watching it, right?

I meant no offense. I appreciate TNG warts and all. I know the show backwards and forwards, can quote whole swathes of dialogue from just about any episode, I've met the cast and some of the crew over the years. I fucking LOVE this show. I just don't tie myself up in knots on how realistic it is. Roddenberry and Co. didn't go into great detail about the exact way the economy and a lot of other things worked in the Trek universe--which was smart on their part. When too much is explained in fiction it can damage the magic. (see: "Midi-chlorians")

I appreciate your contributions to this thread. Please don't take offense.

Steve Shives who did the Trek Economics video also did this wonderful breakdown of TNG for the show's 30th's anniversary:


I'd add that the show was smart about not leaning on the TOS mythos too much and creating its own cornucopia of their own aliens: Betazoids, Cardassians, Bajorans, Ferengi, Yrirdians, Bolians, Pakleds, The Borg, etc. (Thanks to Gene Roddenberry)

And it had the genre television version of "Who Shot J.R.?" that has never been topped 3 decades later.

100% agreed on Darmok.

The storytelling by the campfire gets me every time. Picard saying, "I'm not much of a storyteller ..." - right before launching into the ancient Sumerian story of Gilgamesh and Enkidu.

And Gilgamesh wept bitter tears, saying, 'he who was my companion through adventure and hardship, is gone forever.

While I accept that Darmok is brilliant, that last part about Gilgamesh never clicked with me as it was one mythology that never really came up in my schooling. I learned about plenty of others, just not that.

Anyways, was bored yesterday and pulled up some Trek on Netflix, was looking for the episode where Q becomes human but found Peak Performance instead and watched that. I know we've talked before about how TNG didn't seem to be as serialized as later TV shows or even something like DS9, but watching the episode now, I can see there was a lot more going on. First, they outright state they don't like acting like the military, but they know the Borg are going to be a problem (this is after Q-Who) so they need to sharpen their skills. Then the Starfleet observer is constantly trashing Riker and it plays into the whole thing about Riker passing up his own command to be the Enterprise XO (where ends up staying for 15 years), then we see Wes and Geordi come up with an unorthodox plan under Riker's command, which again ties into how they resolved Best of Both Worlds part 2..

I think there was a lot more going on to tie together ongoing stories than we initially realized, and we should be better aware of that.


And also, midi-chlorians don't explain the magic, they just tell us one way of identifying the magic. Same thing as when Trek would talk about brain chemical levels in a telepath character.

What amazed me is that, for "not being much of a storyteller", Picard (aka the writers) could pull a story about Gilgamesh out of his/their ass.

Not something from Greek/Roman/Egyptian/Norse mythology. Not something from Canterbury/King Arthur. Not something from Shakespeare. Something from Sumerian mythology.

And he actually quoted Gilgamesh.

I found it so effective because it was a story that neither Dathon (nor many of the episode's viewers) would have heard before.